I believe the seminarian in question spent his first few years at the SSPX seminary in Australia but saw the liberalism and wanted to join OLMC. And received the rest of his formation there. Apparently it was good enough for the sede bishop to feel comfortable ordaining him.

I'm assuming that "ImmaculateHeart" is the ordained man in question..If not, he at least has a direct line to that man..In which case I ask, and the faithful require, that he prove his orders. Certificates for himself and also for the six or so consecrations that occurred on the way to Merrill Adamson. Pictures proving the events took place would be ideal. .He should be satisfying those minds before asking for cash.

Mr. Maccabees is free to continue what he is doing. Father has clarified only what is necessary, not the whole story. The whole truth is known to God, who knows all things and his conscience bears him witness, that: 1. Father always told the priests of his intentions. There are reasons why he left when he did, mostly known to the priests, one being his family. 2. He never asked anyone for orders including the Bishop who ordained him nor made any form of pledge to anyone.3. He was ordained in accordance with the will and at the time the priest who took charge of him decided.

- Maccabees appears to know father, but does not consider it important to listen to the other side, but rather makes an analysis precisely on the premise he denies; ie that father never sought orders by himself. This is untrue.- How can anyone ask to leave the seminary with the right to return ? Where does this happen ?- His decision to leave OLMC does not mean disobedience, nor him seeking anything. This is unfounded. He has his reasons which I'm sure Maccabees will not like to hear.The priest who made the decisions concerning father and did all the work in regard to his future knows all that. On the contrary, father contacted Bp. Zendejas only after he left, who tried to help him find a solution to his situation. Finally, he decided to remain with the priest who took him in and was also willing to help him. This is the truth.

- He threatened no one, but saddened by the falsifications after months of suffering from what OLMC tried to do to him, he stated he would be obliged to give the full account of his stay at OLMC.

Bishop Merrill Adamson, is a thuc line Bishop who was consecreted by Bishop José Urbina Anzar, who was consecrated by José Romon Lopez Gaston, himself a thuc bishop through Bishop Christian Datessen, consecrated conditionally by Archbishop Thuc.

Now, apparently, it comes to light there are two independent "Bishop Adamsons."Is there some reason this new "priest" is content not to prove his "ordination" and set the record straight?

There are not two Bishop Adamson's..Someone in the anonymous forum posted a link to a Reverend Thomas Anderson, who is a disagraced child-molesting priest who resides in south-east Minnesota. https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/rev-thomas-adamson/msg579054/?topicseen#msg579054.Reverend THOMAS Anderson doesn't even claim to be a bishop, has not had an active ministry in years, and is probably at least ten if not twenty years senior of Bishop Merrill Anderson..It is beyond me how the OP in that thread could have confused the two, except and unless he just wanted to find the most salacious information that could be found and then pull out an enormously broad brush soaked in mud to smear all those involved..There's not a care in the world for truth when doing that type of thing. Someone can be a priest, not a priest, a priest not worth going to, a bishop, not a bishop, a "bad" bishop, or whatever else without needing to bring child rape into the equation. .This is a confusion that should never have happened. Even a modicum of honest research would have very clearly distinguished a Reverend from a Bishop, a Thomas from a Merrill, a midwesterner from a wanderer, a child-molester from a non-child molester, an eighty-something year old man from a sixty-something year old man, etc. The OP in that thread just wanted to throw a grenade and run. Shame on them.

Mr. Maccabees is free to continue what he is doing. Father has clarified only what is necessary, not the whole story. The whole truth is known to God, who knows all things and his conscience bears him witness, that: 1. Father always told the priests of his intentions. There are reasons why he left when he did, mostly known to the priests, one being his family. 2. He never asked anyone for orders including the Bishop who ordained him nor made any form of pledge to anyone.3. He was ordained in accordance with the will and at the time the priest who took charge of him decided.

- Maccabees appears to know father, but does not consider it important to listen to the other side, but rather makes an analysis precisely on the premise he denies; ie that father never sought orders by himself. This is untrue.- How can anyone ask to leave the seminary with the right to return ? Where does this happen ?- His decision to leave OLMC does not mean disobedience, nor him seeking anything. This is unfounded. He has his reasons which I'm sure Maccabees will not like to hear.The priest who made the decisions concerning father and did all the work in regard to his future knows all that. On the contrary, father contacted Bp. Zendejas only after he left, who tried to help him find a solution to his situation. Finally, he decided to remain with the priest who took him in and was also willing to help him. This is the truth.

- He threatened no one, but saddened by the falsifications after months of suffering from what OLMC tried to do to him, he stated he would be obliged to give the full account of his stay at OLMC.

Bishop Merrill Adamson, is a thuc line Bishop who was consecreted by Bishop José Urbina Anzar, who was consecrated by José Romon Lopez Gaston, himself a thuc bishop through Bishop Christian Datessen, consecrated conditionally by Archbishop Thuc.

.Hopefully no one cares about the petty politics of Pfeifferville. Now that the man claims to be a priest and has his own wandering ministry, that's all water under the bridge. .You say:

Quote

Bishop Merrill Adamson, is a thuc line Bishop who was consecreted by Bishop José Urbina Anzar, who was consecrated by José Romon Lopez Gaston, himself a thuc bishop through Bishop Christian Datessen, consecrated conditionally by Archbishop Thuc.

.Yes, that's the word around town. That's the accepted story, without anything to back it up. I can say that I was consecrated by them, too. But can I prove it? .Can someone inform the Nigerian that there's an onus on him to be able to prove he's a priest? Did he not learn that in seminary? He's gone through an intricate network of very obscure Thuc bishops to get his orders, and as someone who happens to know a bit about these things, I've never seen the sort of proofs that these consecrations occurred or occurred rightly. You can't just say "oh, don't worry about it, he's a Thuc bishop." Lots of Thuc bishops are dubious. The "big three"-- des Lauriers, Carmona, and Zamora-- aren't, and they aren't only because we have all the documenting evidence showing beyond any reasonable doubt that their consecrations happened and happened rightly, and likewise, we have that same proof for the bishops they consecrated, and the priests/bishops who were ordained/consecrated after them, etc..I assume that the man in question probably didn't even look into Adamson to be sure he actually was a bishop. Do I assume rightly? That he didn't look at Urbina, at Olivares, at Dattessen and the rest to ensure that each of those consecrations actually happened, and happened rightly?Does he know that each of them were even capable of coming bishops, i.e., that they were actually priests beforehand? So now he needs to go back and check. And he needs to be ready to satisfy the faithful who rightly require moral certainty regarding the integrity of his orders. That's his job, not ours.

.Hopefully no one cares about the petty politics of Pfeifferville. Now that the man claims to be a priest and has his own wandering ministry, that's all water under the bridge. .You say:.Yes, that's the word around town. That's the accepted story, without anything to back it up. I can say that I was consecrated by them, too. But can I prove it? .Can someone inform the Nigerian that there's an onus on him to be able to prove he's a priest? Did he not learn that in seminary? He's gone through an intricate network of very obscure Thuc bishops to get his orders, and as someone who happens to know a bit about these things, I've never seen the sort of proofs that these consecrations occurred or occurred rightly. You can't just say "oh, don't worry about it, he's a Thuc bishop." Lots of Thuc bishops are dubious. The "big three"-- des Lauriers, Carmona, and Zamora-- aren't, and they aren't only because we have all the documenting evidence showing beyond any reasonable doubt that their consecrations happened and happened rightly, and likewise, we have that same proof for the bishops they consecrated, and the priests/bishops who were ordained/consecrated after them, etc..I assume that the man in question probably didn't even look into Adamson to be sure he actually was a bishop. Do I assume rightly? That he didn't look at Urbina, at Olivares, at Dattessen and the rest to ensure that each of those consecrations actually happened, and happened rightly? Does he know that each of them were even capable of coming bishops, i.e., that they were actually priests beforehand? So now he needs to go back and check. And he needs to be ready to satisfy the faithful who rightly require moral certainty regarding the integrity of his orders. That's his job, not ours.

How in the wide world of sports does someone give a thumb down to this post???

Logged

Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

-I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

CathInfo.com - A message board with Catholic news and information for traditional Catholics living in the modern world.Have questions about our discussion forum? E-mail us: news at cathinfo.com

The posts on CathInfo are the words and opinions of the individual members who posted them, and do not reflect the views of CathInfo or its owner. CathInfo is not liable for the postings of any of its members.

CathInfo is the de-facto discussion headquarters for the SSPX Resistance, which it officially supports.
Traditional Catholics worldwide have made us the #1 forum for SSPX Resistance news and discussion in the English-speaking world.

Please pray for Bishop Richard Williamson, a noble prelate and hand-picked successor of Archbishop Lefebvre whose Catholic wisdom and zeal for the truth have inspired many Traditional Catholics.
On October 23, 2012, the good Bishop was cast out of the SSPX, where he had labored tirelessly for 36 years.
His continued membership in the neo-SSPX would have made a premature union with Rome more difficult.
He is committed to defending Catholic Tradition in all its purity in the SSPX Resistance, as the true successor of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, continuing the fight the SSPX once fought."I have loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore I die in exile." - Pope Gregory VII